Of 6,200 verses in the Quran, only 350 relevant for law. Of the 350, only 180 are qati (absolutely certain—not open for debate). The rest are zanni (probable/assumed part of the Q, but disagreement on how they should be understood).
Those that are qati must be examined in context to determine who and what problem is being addressed because it applies only within that context.
Next, each verse must be examined chronologically, applying abrogation rules, which are as follows:
Later Quran can abrogate a former Quran
An Hadith never abrogates a Quran
Hadith can abrogate a Hadith
Quran never abrogates the Suna
But might be Hadith of uncertain origin (uncertain)
Replacing the rule but not the text
Theory: God revealed an intermediate rule first. Later replaced with a different verse; text of first verse still part of Q.
Simon et al., please notice that under this rule, IT DOESN’T MATTER IF IT’S PART OF THE QURAN—IT’S NULL/VOID AND NOT TO BE FOLLOWED. THAT’S WHY YOU DON’T HAVE MUSLIMS RUNNING AROUND SAYING ‘THAT’S NOT PART OF THE QURAN.’
Replacing both rule and text
When verse says no longer do X, but do Y, the X behavior could not have been only what M told them because that would be sunna, and sunna can’t replace Q. so X must have been based on a verse no longer extant. (Incomplete Quran theory)
Only Q can replace Q
Here is a classic example of how those who have not bothered to learn about Islam from credentialed authorities misinterpret it:
Qur’an 9:29—FIGHT those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, [Please note that “the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book" is Christianity and “the Book” is the Bible. JT] UNTIL they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
A middle-aged, non-Muslim, female poster asserts that the above-referenced verse allows for continued jihad. RADICAL Muslims would say that, but the following is how most Muslims interpret it and it demonstrates the approach I noted at the beginning.
Question:
Does verse 9:29 permit aggression against non-Muslims?
Answer:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
The verse 9:29 is a command to fight the Byzantine Romans and other hostile powers who were planning an invasion against the Muslims in Arabia. In context, it is a distinct response to aggression, in particular the assassination of one of the Prophet’s ambassadors.
-On the surface, this appears to be an open-ended command to fight non-Muslims until they are conquered. However, a fundamental principle of Quranic exegesis (tafseer) is that the verses must be understood in the context in which they were revealed (asbab an-nuzul) and in conjunction with other verses delineating the rules of warfare. –
The expedition of Tabuk was preceded by the battle of Mu’tah which began when the emissary of the Prophet was assassinated while delivering a letter to a Roman ally.
This was the first act of Roman aggression that further led to the expedition of Tabuk concerning which the verse 9:29 was revealed. The verse describes the aggressors as those “who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day,” because they committed this act of treachery. Executing emissaries from other countries is a war crime that could never be committed by those who sincerely believe in God.
Therefore, this context must be understood when reading verse 9:29 so that we clearly know who should be fought, specifically the aggressors among the Jews and Christians and not all of them. Rather, many other verses of the Quran make clear that it is unlawful to initiate hostilities against other nations.
http://www.faithinallah.org/on-interpretation-of-verse-929-and-the-battle-of-tabuk/#sthash.8FCvSZEM.dpuf
